I came from a Protestant 'Non-Denominational' background, which, generally just means disorganized Evangelical and/or Baptist. The biggest thing I learned was that I should respect history and that history is an important part in picking a Church, whereas most Protestants try to ignore it and belittle the importance of it because they have no history. The thing that converted me was when I started to take Jesus' words more seriously in Matthew 16:28 where He said that the Gates of Hades would never prevail against His true Church. And I believe that Apostolic succession is how we determine which Church He was referring to because He explicitely sent His Apostles to establish His Church. So wouldn't it most likely logically folllow that when Jesus makes a promise about His Church, He was probably referring to the one that He would send His Apostles to establish? Yes. This is why I converted to Orthodoxy; because we can trace ourselves back to the Apostles and I still believe that the promise Jesus made to His Church still applies to this very day.

Essentially, I noticed that most Protestants tended to either ignore this passage or interpret it in some strange way that falls short when you really look into it. Many Protestants deny Jesus' promise to protect His Church when they assume that the original Church fell into error. How could His original Church fall into error if He promised to protect it forever? It seems to me like this comes from a lack of faithfulness in Jesus' promise. Or, they tend to interpret this passage in a weird way, bringing up these theories about a 'spiritual Church' or the 'Church inside of us' even though the Apostles visibly established a physical Church in the book of Acts and that no one in history interpreted it like that until the Reformation.

I came from a Protestant 'Non-Denominational' background, which, generally just means disorganized Evangelical and/or Baptist. The biggest thing I learned was that I should respect history and that history is an important part in picking a Church, whereas most Protestants try to ignore it and belittle the importance of it because they have no history. The thing that converted me was when I started to take Jesus' words more seriously in Matthew 16:28 where He said that the Gates of Hades would never prevail against His true Church. And I believe that Apostolic succession is how we determine which Church He was referring to because He explicitely sent His Apostles to establish His Church. So wouldn't it most likely logically folllow that when Jesus makes a promise about His Church, He was probably referring to the one that He would send His Apostles to establish? Yes. This is why I converted to Orthodoxy; because we can trace ourselves back to the Apostles and I still believe that the promise Jesus made to His Church still applies to this very day.

Essentially, I noticed that most Protestants tended to either ignore this passage or interpret it in some strange way that falls short when you really look into it. Many Protestants deny Jesus' promise to protect His Church when they assume that the original Church fell into error. How could His original Church fall into error if He promised to protect it forever? It seems to me like this comes from a lack of faithfulness in Jesus' promise. Or, they tend to interpret this passage in a weird way, bringing up these theories about a 'spiritual Church' or the 'Church inside of us' even though the Apostles visibly established a physical Church in the book of Acts and that no one in history interpreted it like that until the Reformation.

"The Church" comprises of all those in communion with God, including the prophets, the Patriarchs, the angels, the thief on the cross, etc, of whom none were baptized members of the Orthodox Church.

I came from a Protestant 'Non-Denominational' background, which, generally just means disorganized Evangelical and/or Baptist. The biggest thing I learned was that I should respect history and that history is an important part in picking a Church, whereas most Protestants try to ignore it and belittle the importance of it because they have no history. The thing that converted me was when I started to take Jesus' words more seriously in Matthew 16:28 where He said that the Gates of Hades would never prevail against His true Church. And I believe that Apostolic succession is how we determine which Church He was referring to because He explicitely sent His Apostles to establish His Church. So wouldn't it most likely logically folllow that when Jesus makes a promise about His Church, He was probably referring to the one that He would send His Apostles to establish? Yes. This is why I converted to Orthodoxy; because we can trace ourselves back to the Apostles and I still believe that the promise Jesus made to His Church still applies to this very day.

Essentially, I noticed that most Protestants tended to either ignore this passage or interpret it in some strange way that falls short when you really look into it. Many Protestants deny Jesus' promise to protect His Church when they assume that the original Church fell into error. How could His original Church fall into error if He promised to protect it forever? It seems to me like this comes from a lack of faithfulness in Jesus' promise. Or, they tend to interpret this passage in a weird way, bringing up these theories about a 'spiritual Church' or the 'Church inside of us' even though the Apostles visibly established a physical Church in the book of Acts and that no one in history interpreted it like that until the Reformation.

Thank you for your response

Logged

Baptized with my husband and our four year old daughter on May 4, 2013

I came from a Protestant 'Non-Denominational' background, which, generally just means disorganized Evangelical and/or Baptist. The biggest thing I learned was that I should respect history and that history is an important part in picking a Church, whereas most Protestants try to ignore it and belittle the importance of it because they have no history. The thing that converted me was when I started to take Jesus' words more seriously in Matthew 16:28 where He said that the Gates of Hades would never prevail against His true Church. And I believe that Apostolic succession is how we determine which Church He was referring to because He explicitely sent His Apostles to establish His Church. So wouldn't it most likely logically folllow that when Jesus makes a promise about His Church, He was probably referring to the one that He would send His Apostles to establish? Yes. This is why I converted to Orthodoxy; because we can trace ourselves back to the Apostles and I still believe that the promise Jesus made to His Church still applies to this very day.

Essentially, I noticed that most Protestants tended to either ignore this passage or interpret it in some strange way that falls short when you really look into it. Many Protestants deny Jesus' promise to protect His Church when they assume that the original Church fell into error. How could His original Church fall into error if He promised to protect it forever? It seems to me like this comes from a lack of faithfulness in Jesus' promise. Or, they tend to interpret this passage in a weird way, bringing up these theories about a 'spiritual Church' or the 'Church inside of us' even though the Apostles visibly established a physical Church in the book of Acts and that no one in history interpreted it like that until the Reformation.

"The Church" comprises of all those in communion with God, including the prophets, the Patriarchs, the angels, the thief on the cross, etc, of whom none were baptized members of the Orthodox Church.

"The Church" comprises of all those in communion with God, including the prophets, the Patriarchs, the angels, the thief on the cross, etc, of whom none were baptized members of the Orthodox Church.

All of these you list were members of the Israel of God under the Mosaic Law. The Old Testament Church. Except, of course, for the angels...who are not human and therefore cannot be united to Christ in baptism. Their role is separate.

But, this is Convert Issues, so I'll wait for a mod to split this off before continuing.

Logged

"Hades is not a place, no, but a state of the soul. It begins here on earth. Just so, paradise begins in the soul of a man here in the earthly life. Here we already have contact with the divine..." -St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco, Homily On the Sunday of Orthodoxy

I came from a Protestant 'Non-Denominational' background, which, generally just means disorganized Evangelical and/or Baptist. The biggest thing I learned was that I should respect history and that history is an important part in picking a Church, whereas most Protestants try to ignore it and belittle the importance of it because they have no history. The thing that converted me was when I started to take Jesus' words more seriously in Matthew 16:28 where He said that the Gates of Hades would never prevail against His true Church. And I believe that Apostolic succession is how we determine which Church He was referring to because He explicitely sent His Apostles to establish His Church. So wouldn't it most likely logically folllow that when Jesus makes a promise about His Church, He was probably referring to the one that He would send His Apostles to establish? Yes. This is why I converted to Orthodoxy; because we can trace ourselves back to the Apostles and I still believe that the promise Jesus made to His Church still applies to this very day.

Essentially, I noticed that most Protestants tended to either ignore this passage or interpret it in some strange way that falls short when you really look into it. Many Protestants deny Jesus' promise to protect His Church when they assume that the original Church fell into error. How could His original Church fall into error if He promised to protect it forever? It seems to me like this comes from a lack of faithfulness in Jesus' promise. Or, they tend to interpret this passage in a weird way, bringing up these theories about a 'spiritual Church' or the 'Church inside of us' even though the Apostles visibly established a physical Church in the book of Acts and that no one in history interpreted it like that until the Reformation.

"The Church" comprises of all those in communion with God, including the prophets, the Patriarchs, the angels, the thief on the cross, etc, of whom none were baptized members of the Orthodox Church.

They were a part of the old Church; that is, the law of Israel. But now the new Church--which is the Orthodox Church--is here and the new Church is what Jesus was referring to when He made His promise.

What were some of the "biggest" things you learned in or after converting?

I wasn't really "raised" anything but the majority of my childhood religious experience and education was Baptist. My personal conversion experience involved looking into Church history and the biggest changes I had to make was in how I viewed the sacraments, Church authority, and the nature of the Church. Everything else I either didn't really hold to but had never been taught differently (I never really fully agreed with once-saved-always-saved the way it was tuaght to me for example) or came about as a result of changing the major things I mentioned.

The tangent started by Happy Lutheran has been moved to Orthodox-Protestant Discussion. Please remember that this is the Convert Issues board, a place for discussion of issues revolving around conversion to the Orthodox Christian faith. This is not the place for Protestants to debate us Orthodox on points of doctrine; that's why we have the Orthodox-Protestant Discussion board. If you feel you must debate us, then please start a new thread on the Orthodox-Protestant board so we can keep this Convert Issues board focused on its purpose. Thank you.

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

That bigotry, ignorance, spite, and mean-spirited quarrelling is not the exclusive domain of the fire-and-brimstone Appalachian and Ozark Baptists I grew up in

What converted me to Orthodox was not necessarily the inherent niceness or holiness of the people or the clergy (though be sure, while there are riffraff in a lot of Churches, I chose my individual parish because the people and clergy were humbly holy) within the Church as a whole, we are not short of strife or scandal, but that the Divine Mysteries themselves are perfection of God on the earth.

The Church is as inept and corrupt as any other place, the clergy are out-spoken sinners (also why I converted, priests humbly confess they are sinners like the rest of us and are rarely as self-righteous as preachers who seldom publicly admit to fault instead pointing the fire-and-brimstone at the congregation), the people sometimes backwards and greedy like a lot of other successful people, and there are bitter rivalries, caustic politics, racism, bickering, gossiping, divisions, and all kinds of drama. Thankfully, the Church was never meant to be perfect, quite the opposite, the Church is a spiritual hospital because as Our Lord told us, "Those who are healthy are of no need of a physician, but those are who sick!"

The Divine Mysteries are perfect. Baptism, Holy Chrismation, Confession, Holy Communion, Ordination, Holy Matrimony, and the Unction of the Sick alone is holy, perfect. Maybe the Latins believe the Church is perfect, but that is not how Orthodox was explained to me. The Church is human like the rest of us, and thank God for it! Inside the Church, we are being perfected, through the Divine Mysteries. The Baptists avowedly assert as their dogma that the Sacraments are mere symbols, indeed it is one of their central gripes with even the Lutherans let alone their Catholic grandparents. No, the Cathars were heretical puritans when they began robbing churches and murdering clergy in the 14th century, and the Baptists may have tamed their hand (today that is, in colonial America the Puritans executed as many people as the Spanish Inquisition did!!) but have the same mean spirit. I came to Orthodox because I loved the Baptists, and there are good people there too, but there are scumbags like anywhere else, indeed like there are in the Church. What the Baptists never have, what they never wanted, what they vehemently oppose, is the Divine Mysteries, and that alone is Grace. Like Peter said, "Where else shall we go Lord?"

God bless all people, and God bless us all, but the Baptists need it more than most and I speak only from direct experience

I will add this, SUPERB MUSIC, Lord have His mercy it still touches my soul, luckily the Ethiopian Mezmur is just as delightful.

stay blessed,habte selassie

Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10

I came from a Protestant 'Non-Denominational' background, which, generally just means disorganized Evangelical and/or Baptist. The biggest thing I learned was that I should respect history and that history is an important part in picking a Church, whereas most Protestants try to ignore it and belittle the importance of it because they have no history. The thing that converted me was when I started to take Jesus' words more seriously in Matthew 16:28 where He said that the Gates of Hades would never prevail against His true Church. And I believe that Apostolic succession is how we determine which Church He was referring to because He explicitely sent His Apostles to establish His Church. So wouldn't it most likely logically folllow that when Jesus makes a promise about His Church, He was probably referring to the one that He would send His Apostles to establish? Yes. This is why I converted to Orthodoxy; because we can trace ourselves back to the Apostles and I still believe that the promise Jesus made to His Church still applies to this very day.

Essentially, I noticed that most Protestants tended to either ignore this passage or interpret it in some strange way that falls short when you really look into it. Many Protestants deny Jesus' promise to protect His Church when they assume that the original Church fell into error. How could His original Church fall into error if He promised to protect it forever? It seems to me like this comes from a lack of faithfulness in Jesus' promise. Or, they tend to interpret this passage in a weird way, bringing up these theories about a 'spiritual Church' or the 'Church inside of us' even though the Apostles visibly established a physical Church in the book of Acts and that no one in history interpreted it like that until the Reformation.

"The Church" comprises of all those in communion with God, including the prophets, the Patriarchs, the angels, the thief on the cross, etc, of whom none were baptized members of the Orthodox Church.

They were a part of the old Church; that is, the law of Israel. But now the new Church--which is the Orthodox Church--is here and the new Church is what Jesus was referring to when He made His promise.

They were part of the Old Covenant, but the Covenant isn't the Church itself, rather the "Covenant" that the Church is under.

I came from a Protestant 'Non-Denominational' background, which, generally just means disorganized Evangelical and/or Baptist. The biggest thing I learned was that I should respect history and that history is an important part in picking a Church, whereas most Protestants try to ignore it and belittle the importance of it because they have no history. The thing that converted me was when I started to take Jesus' words more seriously in Matthew 16:28 where He said that the Gates of Hades would never prevail against His true Church. And I believe that Apostolic succession is how we determine which Church He was referring to because He explicitely sent His Apostles to establish His Church. So wouldn't it most likely logically folllow that when Jesus makes a promise about His Church, He was probably referring to the one that He would send His Apostles to establish? Yes. This is why I converted to Orthodoxy; because we can trace ourselves back to the Apostles and I still believe that the promise Jesus made to His Church still applies to this very day.

Essentially, I noticed that most Protestants tended to either ignore this passage or interpret it in some strange way that falls short when you really look into it. Many Protestants deny Jesus' promise to protect His Church when they assume that the original Church fell into error. How could His original Church fall into error if He promised to protect it forever? It seems to me like this comes from a lack of faithfulness in Jesus' promise. Or, they tend to interpret this passage in a weird way, bringing up these theories about a 'spiritual Church' or the 'Church inside of us' even though the Apostles visibly established a physical Church in the book of Acts and that no one in history interpreted it like that until the Reformation.

"The Church" comprises of all those in communion with God, including the prophets, the Patriarchs, the angels, the thief on the cross, etc, of whom none were baptized members of the Orthodox Church.

They were a part of the old Church; that is, the law of Israel. But now the new Church--which is the Orthodox Church--is here and the new Church is what Jesus was referring to when He made His promise.

They were part of the Old Covenant, but the Covenant isn't the Church itself, rather the "Covenant" that the Church is under.

I'd appreciate it if my thread remained on topic, thanks.

Logged

Baptized with my husband and our four year old daughter on May 4, 2013